Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Pegasus accident in SAW; just reported

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Pegasus accident in SAW; just reported

Old 6th Feb 2020, 08:11
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: on the edge.
Posts: 120
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheEdge
Could you provide the link for the video ?
just found this video:


TheEdge is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 08:21
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This relatively poor quality video clearly shows the aircraft porpoising, you can see the surface contamination. Having said that, it was avoidable.


Although SAW is often closed at night for "repairs" it appears nothing actually gets fixed, the airport stopped the heavy cargo aircraft for a while, but that didn't help much. In truth the runway needs digging up and completely re-laying.. just like Gaziantep, although hopefully quicker.

For Dave Reid https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20200205-0
Kirks gusset is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 08:27
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by zlin77
I doubt if many other current airliners would have fared much better, would an A320 still be substantially intact after a similar "rough landing"?
Given the three runovers in a relatively short time period I was about to comment, let's wait until PGS aquires some AB products then we shall see .
Then I learned that they have 38 B737 but 43 A32x in their fleet ​​​​​​ ... ​​​​​​.
​​​​​
BDAttitude is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 08:29
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: redditch
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Joe le Taxi
A question I expect Boeing are starting to ask themselves is, is it good business sense to sell our products to airlines who are given to smashing them to pieces, putting them on front pages and giving regulators palpitations?
This frame 737 was ex Air Berlin and was 2nd hand and leased in by Pegasus so Boeing had nothing to do with with it.People are looking to tie Boeing into this because of the MAX you only have to look at some of the stupid comments further up this thread about being some fault because the fuselage split into 3 parts.I can't see the likes of Boeing/Airbus stopping sales to airlines because of an airlines record of running aircraft off the runway i think in this case they could look at it as a small victory in the safety of the 737 as most walked away from the crash.
andyjoy is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 08:31
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
https://www.airporthaber.com/pegasus...untulendi.html

Apologies the text is Turkish, the pictures are quite clear. Thankfully the construction of the new tunnels meant the ground is relatively soft mud, 3 years ago it was a rocky escarpment and the outcome would have been potentially much worse
Kirks gusset is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 09:51
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: SEQ
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ollie Onion
I assume there was not a lot of fuel onboard as there was fire at the breakup but is seems to have extinguished itself which would suggest not too much fuel in the tanks which may have forced the issue of pushing on with such an tailwind.
Poor excuse or reasoning. New Istanbul Airport is 5min flying away with perpendicular Runways 16/34 direction.
METAR would have been valid for the entire flight, therefore the wind would have been appicable. Poor planning, poor decision making, poor CRM, take your pick. They had plenty of options. Even the old, yet still functioning Ataturk Airport would have taken them if required. A 180 dgree turn would have had them almost aligned with Runway 23 there.
The Shovel is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 09:54
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by lederhosen
The standard limit when I flew the 737 by the way was 10 knots tailwind.
I'm pretty sure it's greater than 10 knots tailwind, if you see the design limitation that is.... An Airbus 330 usually says stop at 16 knots, and the Dash 8 goes all the way up to 20 knots, and I've had 737's land with tailwind more than 10 knots.

I'm "just" the ATCO, I don't make the final decision, that responsibility lies in the cockpit.

But doesn't ICAO state that gusting wind shall only be given it more than 10 knots off the mean wind?
jmmoric is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 10:01
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by YRP
It is similar to the comments on how the Asiana 777 crash at SFO showed how strongly built the plane was... you know, apart from the tail breaking off.
The Asiana pilots damn near cartwheeled the aircraft into the ground and the aircraft would have fragmented into many pieces if not so strongly built. I can't imagine any flying aircraft able to survive that sort of incident without serious damage, and the aircraft performed its most critical function - keeping most or all passengers alive - even well outside design parameters.



nicolai is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 10:05
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea Australia
Posts: 1,378
Received 101 Likes on 43 Posts
The 737NG Airplane Flight Manual Limitation is 15 knots tailwind maximum.
Of course braking action is another factor, as is overshooting the touchdown zone.

Australopithecus is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 10:18
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EDLB
Posts: 370
Received 10 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by jmmoric
and I've had 737's land with tailwind more than 10 knots.
It is not, that you physical can not land with higher tail winds. The problem is that the ground speed is the tailwind component higher than your IAS (Which makes your airplane fly).
So the normal 3 degree slope will need to be less than 3 degrees and you run faster out of runway because your touch down speed is by the tailwind component higher. So you need a longer runway, the slope should be lower than 3 degrees which often terrain clearance, noise abatement, ILS slope and procedures do not allow for, and your touch down ground speed is higher, which might be limited by tire rating and breaking performance.

The theoretical lower than 3 degree slope needed for tail wind also mean, if you are high on a 3 degree slope with tail wind, forget it. You need much more runway with tail wind and if you touch down late...
EDLB is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 10:53
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by EDLB
It is not...etc...
Definately agree, I'm not arguing against it, and very well aware of the physics behind.
jmmoric is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 10:57
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South of the Watford Gap, East of Portland
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not great video quality - but I don't see any spray being kicked up by the reversers.
judge11 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 11:40
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by EDLB
It is not, that you physical can not land with higher tail winds. The problem is that the ground speed is the tailwind component higher than your IAS (Which makes your airplane fly).
So the normal 3 degree slope will need to be less than 3 degrees and you run faster out of runway because your touch down speed is by the tailwind component higher. So you need a longer runway, the slope should be lower than 3 degrees which often terrain clearance, noise abatement, ILS slope and procedures do not allow for, and your touch down ground speed is higher, which might be limited by tire rating and breaking performance.

The theoretical lower than 3 degree slope needed for tail wind also mean, if you are high on a 3 degree slope with tail wind, forget it. You need much more runway with tail wind and if you touch down late...
Also, windshear will make your airspeed go up as you get closer tot the ground, increasing the ground effect and making it more difficult to get the aircraft on the ground...
procede is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 12:08
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
To answer jmmoric the older NGs were definitely 10 knots. This airframe came from AirBerlin, originally D-ABKD and was relatively new (delivered 2009) so would probably have had the higher 15 knot tailwind limitation. When I listened to the ATC recording I don`t remember hearing anything from the tower about the runway being wet. It may have been in Turkish and therefore I missed it. But on the video it looks very wet and that would obviously be more limiting.
lederhosen is online now  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 12:20
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by wtsmg
Given the LDA it would be interesting if full reverse and manual braking would have stopped it if they’d actually landed in 06’s TDZ rather than 24’s.

Anyone at work with access to 73 landing perf? 22-37kt TW, braking action good or medium to good, 3000m rwy, ZFW for 177 pax, probably <2T fuel.
There won‘t be distances in the manual for TW much higher than allowed.

However, with 3000m I am sure it would have worked using all of the runway. They left the runway with around 60kt. 500m more and they easily would have made it.
EDML is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 12:27
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by lederhosen
I don`t remember hearing anything from the tower about the runway being wet. It may have been in Turkish and therefore I missed it.
Thanks.

Could've been on the ATIS?
jmmoric is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 12:29
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 724
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: the 10 or 15 knot tailwind limit:
737NG: We had a 10 kt limit. Sometimes we lended an airframe to one of our sister airlines, which has a separate AOC. The plane wasn’t even painted over, just some paperwork was changed. Suddenly this same airplane was now allowed a 15 kt tailwind! That simple.
fox niner is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 12:41
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by EDLB
It is not, that you physical can not land with higher tail winds. The problem is that the ground speed is the tailwind component higher than your IAS (Which makes your airplane fly).
So the normal 3 degree slope will need to be less than 3 degrees and you run faster out of runway because your touch down speed is by the tailwind component higher. So you need a longer runway, the slope should be lower than 3 degrees which often terrain clearance, noise abatement, ILS slope and procedures do not allow for, and your touch down ground speed is higher, which might be limited by tire rating and breaking performance.

The theoretical lower than 3 degree slope needed for tail wind also mean, if you are high on a 3 degree slope with tail wind, forget it. You need much more runway with tail wind and if you touch down late...
No. The glideslope remains the same as long as the throttles can stay above idle to prevent IAS from increasing. The only thing tailwind does is to increase the groundspeed at which you touch down and that higher groundspeed causes the longer landing distance required. Combine that with landing out of the touchdown zone (long) and the runway will quickly become too short.
sleeper is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 13:08
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Age: 47
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by EDML
There won‘t be distances in the manual for TW much higher than allowed.

However, with 3000m I am sure it would have worked using all of the runway. They left the runway with around 60kt. 500m more and they easily would have made it.
Operational landing distance is 2539m acc. Boeing OPT (TALPA, 455m flare, +15%)

SAW, RWY06, BA medium, Max LDW, GND speed 174kts
KRH270/12 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2020, 13:58
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 256
Received 16 Likes on 5 Posts
However, with 3000m I am sure it would have worked using all of the runway. They left the runway with around 60kt. 500m more and they easily would have made it.
Roughly 65% higher energy than the same landing with a 10kt headwind.
Fursty Ferret is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.